From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Date: | 2006-12-21 16:47:56 |
Message-ID: | 20061221164756.GG14992@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:15:38AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Can we? For anything of any permenence (view definitions, rules,
> > compiled functions, plans, etc) you're going to want the physical
> > number, for the same reason we store the oids of functions and tables.
>
> Not if we intend to rearrange the physical numbers during column
> add/drop to provide better packing.
Urk! If that's what people are suggesting, I'd run away very quickly.
Getting better packing during table create is a nice idea, but
preserving it across add/drop column is just... evil.
Run CLUSTER is you want that, I was expecting add/drop to be a simple
catalog change, nothing more.
> You could make a case that we need *three* numbers: a permanent column
> ID, a display position, and a storage position.
That's just way too complicated IMHO. It add's extra levels of
indirection all over the place.
I was envisiging the physical number to be fixed and immutable (ie
storage position = permanent position).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2006-12-21 16:50:32 | Re: New version of money type |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-21 16:43:27 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-21 16:59:47 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-21 16:43:27 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |